A.J.T. v. Osseo: SCOTUS Win for Disabled Students
Update (July 16, 2025):
This article previously reported that a federal court in Massachusetts ordered the Department of Education to reinstate laid-off staff from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and submit weekly updates on complaint handling. After publication, however, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted that injunction, allowing the Trump administration to proceed with the layoffs.
In a major win for disability justice, the Supreme Court ruled that students with disabilities should be treated like everyone else when it comes to civil rights. The June 12 decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools confirms that families can bring discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) without having to meet a higher legal standard simply because the discrimination occurred in a school setting, a barrier that has long undermined the rights of disabled students, advocates say.
For over forty years, courts in five federal circuits, including the Eighth Circuit, followed the 1982 Monahan v. Nebraska decision, which imposed an unusually high bar on disabled students seeking damages for educational discrimination. Under Monahan, families had to prove that school officials acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” This was a much stricter legal standard than the one used in most ADA cases, where plaintiffs only needed to show that officials were aware of the discrimination and failed to act, which is known as “deliberate indifference”. As a result, even when schools failed to meet their legal responsibilities, families often had no path to compensation unless they could prove intentional or extreme misconduct. The Supreme Court’s decision in A.J.T v. Osseo overturns that precedent and reaffirms that disability discrimination in schools should be treated like any other civil rights violation.
“The legal question at play here is ‘Do students have to show that their school acted with ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment’ in order to get relief under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act?’, and those are two really big disability civil rights laws,” said Casey Doherty, disability policy analyst at the Center for American Progress. “This case really has huge implications for disabled students accessing public education.”
A.J.T.’s Dilemma
A.J.T., a Minnesota student with a serious form of epilepsy, experienced seizures, most often in the mornings. Because of this, her family requested that the school district, Osseo Area Schools, adjust her schedule so she could receive instruction in the afternoon, matching the length of the school day her peers received.
“The district refused that request. Instead, they offered things like one-on-one instruction or summer school, which would have meant isolating [A.J.T.] from her peers, pretty much totally,” said Doherty.
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), students with disabilities are entitled to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). This means schools must provide special education and related services tailored to meet each student’s unique needs, ensuring disabled students receive access to meaningful learning opportunities equal to their non-disabled peers.
Selene Almazan, an attorney and legal director for the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), has worked on disability rights cases for decades. She explained the family’s legal strategy in this case.
"The family sued and there were two cases.... They were brought in tandem,” said Almazan. “The first case was on whether or not she was getting a free appropriate public education, which she's entitled to as a student with a disability, the hearing officer in the court found that she wasn't getting a free appropriate public education and [ruled] in favor of the family."
In the other case, however, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals applied a stricter legal standard than what is typically used in civil rights cases, based on the precedent set by Monahan v. Nebraska. To win damages, families had to prove that school officials acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment,” rather than simply showing that the school knew about the discrimination and failed to intervene.
“The standard of ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment’ was a standard that only applied if you were a student in a K-12 public school, which seemed really unfair,” said Almazan. “If you don't get your accommodation in a library or in a movie theater, you don't have to prove ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment’. You just have to prove that you didn't get it. And so it seemed manifestly unfair that students with an IEP had to cross such a high bar.”
The Supreme Court Case
The Supreme Court stepped in to resolve a longstanding split: while the stricter “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard was applied only in K-12 educational settings, federal appeals courts were also divided over whether that higher threshold was necessary at all. Some circuits had already adopted the more common “deliberate indifference” standard used in other civil rights cases, creating inconsistency across the country.
The standard of “deliberate indifference” requires showing that a school knew there was a strong likelihood its actions would violate a student’s protected rights and failed to act. It is a lower burden than proving “bad faith or gross misjudgment”, creating more accessible legal recourse for families.
“The ‘deliberate indifference’ standard seems to be the standard that the Supreme Court embraced in A.J.T. v. Osseo, and that's a standard that comes from other civil rights laws, like violations of Title VI, which is the civil rights law based on race, nationality, English language learners, [etc.],” said Almazan.
On June 12, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of A.J.T., holding that the “deliberate indifference” standard must apply nationwide to disability discrimination claims brought under ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
“Lower courts must now apply that ‘deliberate indifference’ standard, and that will make it easier for disabled students and families to sue schools for disability discrimination,” said Doherty.
This decision could reshape how disability discrimination cases are handled in schools across the nation. By removing the heightened standard, the Supreme Court has eliminated a major obstacle that had made it nearly impossible for families to win damages unless they could prove extreme misconduct. Families no longer have to show that school officials acted with bad intent, only that they knew about the problem and failed to address it. The impact reaches far beyond a single student.
“I think this certainly gives families and advocates another avenue if they've been harmed in school or if they've been subjected to treatment that is discriminatory,” said Almazan. “In situations maybe like a shortened school day… or in situations where a student can't get access to a field trip, or a student can't get access to a classroom that has technology in it just because of their disability; maybe those are all potential discrimination cases… in addition to situations when children are harmed in schools, either through restraint and seclusion, or through general abuse of children in self-contained classrooms or standalone buildings where there are not other students with disabilities.”
Barriers to Enforcement Despite Legal Wins
Even with a clearer, more accessible legal standard, many families will still face obstacles when trying to enforce their rights. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Education plays a crucial role in protecting disabled students. It investigates complaints, monitors compliance, and can resolve cases without families having to go through costly and complex court battles. Families can file complaints with OCR without a lawyer.
However, under the Trump administration, OCR has significantly scaled back its operations. Many regional offices have been closed or consolidated, leading to fewer investigations and slower responses. Families, advocates, and experts warn that these cutbacks undermine enforcement and leave disabled students vulnerable to ongoing discrimination.
“The administration has already decimated the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, closing many regional offices, and that means that families of disabled students have little to no recourse if their children face discrimination at school,” said Doherty. “There was already a backlog of discrimination cases that the office hadn't even gotten to during the Biden administration, and now they have so few staff members, there's no chance those are going to get investigated. While this case is a big win, I remain concerned about equity in public education and civil rights enforcement.”
Recently, however, a federal court in Massachusetts ruled that the Department of Education must reinstate laid-off OCR staff and submit weekly updates on how complaints are being handled. The judge found that the staff cuts left OCR unable to properly investigate most civil rights cases. Legal battles are ongoing, but injunctions requiring OCR to restore staff and improve transparency remain in place, giving many advocates a glimmer of hope.
NOTE: The Supreme Court has since lifted this injunction. The Department is no longer required to reinstate OCR staff or submit updates.
“I still remain optimistic that the courts are our avenue to right injustices that are happening right now in our country,” said Almazan. “Obviously, we know from the media and other news outlets that they are dismissing a lot of cases at a rapid rate, and that's really problematic because there are a lot of families out there who filed civil rights complaints and are now left with really no other options as far as what to do.”
Still, the ripple effects of federal budget cuts and the Trump administration’s tax and spending policies threaten to reduce resources available for enforcement and school support. Advocates say that without adequate funding and fully staffed enforcement offices, legal victories alone will not guarantee that disabled students receive the education and protections they are owed.
Beyond challenges with enforcement, additional threats loom that could limit the impact of this ruling. Trump’s recently passed tax and spending law includes deep cuts to Medicaid, Pell Grants, SNAP, and other funding vital to public schools. Without these essential supports, families may face even greater obstacles despite the new legal protections.
The new law “consists of tax and spending cuts that will harm disabled students so much. The [law] will implement an estimated spending cut of nearly $350 billion from education,” said Doherty.
Looking Ahead: Vigilant Advocacy is Key
While the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo offers a strong light of hope for disabled students and families, advocates know the fight is far from over.
“Supreme Court decisions [shouldn’t] just end with the decision,” said Doherty. “Now we have momentum. I think we should call on the federal government to actually enforce civil rights in education. We need to call on an expansion of the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, especially as families gain these new legal tools… As courts begin to apply this new consistent standard, advocates should track how lower courts and district courts implement this standard. I think we need to keep our eye on the ball and see how this is affecting cases for disabled students.”
As school districts adjust to the new legal standard, there is also a need for internal reflection. Staff must understand how legal obligations apply to their day-to-day decisions and how bias can still show up in routine educational practices.
“I think that school district lawyers need to do some training on how decisions are made, whether or not decisions are made based on disability, and whether or not students are getting access to the same programs, benefits, and services that other children are getting that do not have disabilities,” said Almazan. “I think those are conversations that are going to have to be had at IEP meetings and at 504 meetings and at trainings for teachers so that they understand what their obligations are and that there is no longer this very high ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment’ standard that students in K-12 had to prove.”
This case is just one part of a larger fight for civil rights. The systems that fail disabled students often harm other marginalized groups as well, and the need for collective vigilance spans across identities. The work of protecting students with disabilities doesn’t happen in isolation. It intersects with other struggles for equity, dignity, and justice in schools and beyond.
“I think that it's important for everyone, regardless of whether or not you are a person of color, whether or not you have a different country of origin, or whether or not you understand or experience disability… [to be] vigilant to point out when there are injustices. And I'm hoping that the pendulum will swing the other way eventually,” said Almazan.
